raj_cambridge said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
raj_cambridge said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
raj_cambridge said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
That reframing is the part I needed.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
PeptideChemSF said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.